Vertical use of space by the marsupial Micoureus paraguayanus (Didelphimorphia,Didelphidae) in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil

Abstract

Despite most neotropical marsupials have arboreal habits, methodological and analytical difficulties usually hamper the study of vertical movements of individuals. We used the spool-and-line technique to record height and incline of movements, escape behaviour and use of refuges by the opossum Micoureus paraguayanus (Tate, 1931) (Didelphimorphia, Didelphidae) in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. A new index for measuring intensity of vertical use of space by individuals is introduced and applied to compare movements of males and females of M. paraguayanus. Activity on the ground was scarce and refuges were located exclusively above-ground. The lower stratum was the most used by individuals. Females had greater intensity of vertical use than males, exploring more the vertical axis of the forest. The results confirm arboreal habits of M. paraguayanus and demonstrate that males and females use differently the vertical dimension of habitat. The new index presented can be a valuable tool for studying use of space by arboreal small mammals.

Cunha A. A. and Vieira M. V. 2002. Support diameter, incline, and vertical movements of four didelphid marsupials in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Journal of Zoology, London 258: 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gannon W. L., Sikes R. S. and The Animal Care and Use committee of The American Society of Mammalogists. 2007. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 809–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rader R. and Krockenberger A. 2006. Three-dimensional use of space by a tropical rainforest rodent, Melomys cervinipes, and its implications for foraging and homerange size. Wildlife Research 33: 577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells K., Pfeiffer M., Lakim M. B. and Linsenmair K. E. 2004. Use of arboreal and terrestrial space by a small mammal community in a tropical rain forest in Borneo, Malaysia. Journal of Biogeography 31: 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar